If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

New Strathcona ARP

The area's redevelop plan will be undergoing revision, and with recent area and city growth, it presents some new and interesting scenarios and considerations. I am personally curious to see what amendments and alterations those on this forum would consider essential and/or relevant seeing where the old ARP has led the area and how development and urban strategies are being reimagined and implemented in our city (bike infrastructure, new transit strategy, mixed-use, age/family units etc.

My most recent interests, both as a patron of the area, and from an academic standpoint, are parking and codes/zoning. The area's zoning, as is and within the fine print, limits quality growth and renewal, and new tactics need to be employed to encourage quality infill and density.

I aim to understand your viewpoints in conjunction with my research to see what best strategies to discuss/write on for the new Strathcona ARP. Let's keep it non-subjective as possible.

The city needs to come up with a plan that encourages good development, instead of choking it out with guidelines that are too restrictive. The current guidelines keep getting ignored because council realizes they stop any development from happening, even if it's good.

For instance, the Fuzion condos fell outside the Ritchie addition to the ARP and we largely ended up with what we got because of the addition being too late, and the current Old Strath ARP needing more detail in some places (codes... "shall not exceed" etc) and less restriction in other areas.

What's the point? The city just ignores any plans, guidelines etc they come up with anyway. Why waste the time? I personally feel it is important, but only if they aren't subsequently ignored.

I agree 100%, its a waste of time, everything is decided on a case by case, location by location assessment, with minimal consideration to plans or guidelines. It all just comes down to Council vote on the day. There are dozens of city plans sitting on shelves gathering dust, its just a make work / job project.

^^No, not as far as I am aware, but you see it a lot more in the states.

We have a very weak system of ensuring compliance in terms of statutory plans and zoning bylaws.

Right now if a municipal action doesn't comply with ALSA (which is pretty much impossible given how lax the wording is), anyone can make a complaint which goes to the land use secretariat. They then pass it on to the GOA if there is substance, but ultimately the decision is made at the Minister's whim because the Minister has the final say. There is no judicial procedure like you would have in the states, and I think that is a huge weakness.

With Bill 20 last spring we saw new requirements for compliance in a new hierarchy of plans (ALSA -> Regional (if applicable) -> IDP -> MDP -> ASP/ARP). But no mention of how this will actually be enforced. Bill 20 says that if a lower plan does not comply with the higher one, the higher one "prevails", but does not elaborate on how this would actually function. It also does not elaborate on what happens when a municipality has a bunch of compliant statutory plans, but a completely detached LUB.

Right across the province at the moment LUBs are completely out of line with statutory plans in the worst way. I'm frankly not aware of anyone that has a LUB that actually fits with the statutory plans in place. Municipalities seem to use statutory plans to show off all their grand ideas like increasing density, walkability etc, but then enact LUBs that contradict those goals and objectives entirely (e.g. parking requirements, secondary/garage suite limitations etc in Edmonton - contrary to MDP, contrary to many ASP/ARPs).

I would personally prefer if we introduced the more litigious American system. So any landowner, community group, developer etc could sue if a subservient plan does not comply or a decision is made that contravenes the statutory plans. For example in that system Ducks Unlimited could sue a municipality for approving a development (acceptable under the LUB) on a wetland, if the statutory plan called for the protection of wetlands. Or a developer could sue if the statutory plans called for increased density in all mature areas, but then restricted development to a point where a reasonable person would interpret it as not promoting density (side point: this system leads to far more precise and measurable objectives - instead of just having a "increase density" goal with no specifics you get real planning objectives to prevent lawsuits).

That would be a huge headache at first for municipalities, but it results in a far more predictable and efficient system in the long run.

New on-street parking system with more metred parking spaces? All on-street parking fees going directly into ARP zone fund for maintenance/improvement? OSBA/BRZ direct control (like their surface parking lot) of fee collection and use in area maintenance/enhancement?

Would personally like to see, and am trying to secure, on-street parking as a integrated part/tool of the Area's plan. ARP also needs to address need of parkades that bode well for pedestrian activity... some interesting tools out there to facilitate that development and to position them well within the community... trying to work towards better wording and structure on this type of parking structure within the ARP. For such a huge impact... parking is barely listed on the current ARP, and is left more to zoning. The exception being the Historic Business District (roughly 105-103 street and 81-83 avenue), which only recently brought in a business/building parking reduction.

New survey is up, which was consolidated and simplified from participating workshopers/ workbook responses. Meeting #2 is early September in the Roots Building. Would like to see where this even goes if anywhere

City of Edmonton is having difficulty uploading all the pdf materials from the 2nd workshop to their website, but I was e-mailed all the slides that they had on display. I am unsure as to have it posted here for it's attached to my google Drive. The City seems very interested in increasing density outside the Historic Commercial District to 6-8ish stories, while maintaining the 4 in the Core. They are very interested and trying to get public support for buildings along Whyte that resemble the Raymond Block (4 stories with 2 story setback). Of course plan B is to have a lot more 10-14 story buildings between 104 street and 103 street south of 81 avenue to increase both residents in the area or to enhance the office space for more overall traffic and use of infrastructure. They said they'll have it up by Wednesday so anyone could "have a say".

Here is all the information from the second workshop, along with a feedback survey. It's interesting to note that a lot of the ideas is talked passionately about were being discussed and mentioned by staff or in these documents. Doesn't surprise me these ideas want to be applied in this area, but it surprised me they had the will to include proposals of higher density and pedestrian corridors in the alleys. It just seemed like that Whyte would stagnate. It's been great to talk to city staff and see how interested thy are in changing this area and making it grow/compete and to see their ideas and dedication. Please fill out the survey and be as informative and insightful with scholarly and literary or even real life examples to promote change for this area.

It's my understanding that the "final" Plan Whyte report will be presented on March 20th at a public hearing... I think this is around the same time that the Southpark lands proposal was delayed until?